WSJ highlights U.S. companies investing heavily to move oil and natural gas to market from newer...

WSJ highlights U.S. companies investing heavily to move oil and natural gas to market from newer shale-rock finds, reversing existing pipelines and beefing up rail and barge. As much as $45B may be spent in 2013 on new or expanded transportation infrastructure, including pipelines, rail cars, rail terminals and other projects.
From other sites
Comments (22)
  • pmulqueeney
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
    Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway already have the right of ways to transport oil from the Balken to market. Who needs a
    pipeline? Take the oil to market.
    27 Dec 2012, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (346) | Send Message
    27 Dec 2012, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Sumflow
    , contributor
    Comments (3595) | Send Message
    Pipelines are more efficient.
    27 Dec 2012, 07:22 PM Reply Like
  • Larry Smith
    , contributor
    Comments (3188) | Send Message
    Interesting article, let me sum it up, fracking and horizontal drilling are creating 10's of thousand of jobs in oil fields, for pipeline companies, for railroads, barge traffic and in manufacturing plants. Many companies are profiting from this drilling technique, thus they pay more taxes. So we have jobs, oil and gas from right here in the U.S. that helps balance of payments and tax income for local, state and federal governments.


    Of course the environmentalist want to stop all of it.
    27 Dec 2012, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • bobby44
    , contributor
    Comments (502) | Send Message
    I have already been personally involved in flow reversals to allow some Marcellus gas to market. I appreciate the work, producers appreciate the sales, governments appreciate the royalties and tax revenue, and end users appreciate the product at a very reasonable price. I just don't understand those who are mystified by the formula.
    $45B is a lot of money and is NOT 'fresh print' money or government debt.


    GET AT IT!!!
    27 Dec 2012, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • auto44
    , contributor
    Comments (3643) | Send Message
    New york State has been studying fracking for five years. I wonder how long it is going to take them to get a masters degree in this subject. The subject isn't that hard. You would think with all their resources they would have aced it by now. I think they are pulling an F SO FAR AND DRIFTING LOWER.
    27 Dec 2012, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (991) | Send Message
    Whoa, something GOOD for the US economy and domestic energy production?


    Obama's shills at the EPA will be doing everything possible to slow or stop the progress.
    27 Dec 2012, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • cfg3450
    , contributor
    Comments (86) | Send Message
    Seems it is just getting started. Obama has the GOP by the tail
    and now he is going to rug their nose in it.
    Where will energy and all the good jobs go when he takes
    us "Off the Fiscal Cliff "?
    27 Dec 2012, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • Okatie Jack
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
    OBAMA'S EPA chief resigned in some sort of scandal today.
    28 Dec 2012, 03:36 AM Reply Like
  • contaylor
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
    Larry you forgot Obama did stop it !!!!!!!!!
    28 Dec 2012, 04:16 AM Reply Like
  • Gary O. Tapert
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
    During 2012 the Pacific Northwest States of Oregon and the State
    of Washington have been shipping by long Trains for port shipping
    to Pacific Ocean Energy Markets. Warren Buffett has his big trains.
    I support the Union Pacific, who adds to many types fuels from the
    Canada and U.S.A. Northern and Mid-West sources. Now,this Area
    has plans for more pipelines to build Refineries to process more
    products to up date transportations, as Kinder Morgan plans many
    programs of the needed Energy-Efficiency. IT'S NEW INFARSTURE.
    28 Dec 2012, 04:18 AM Reply Like
  • Okatie Jack
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message

    28 Dec 2012, 04:24 AM Reply Like
  • MarkIrwin
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
    I didn't get it either;, Lornebe
    28 Dec 2012, 04:27 AM Reply Like
  • User 226701
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
    Big Oil will always tell you that their industry is safe and crates a wealth of jobs. Remember how safe deep water drilling was supposed to be, how pipe line are not suppose to ever fail but do with the resulting destruction of the environment. Most people, myself included, want and need the comforts that oil brings to our lives. Fracking is "Big Oil" newest version of the safe and easy way out of our energy crisis. Lets make sure we have strong and effective safe guards in place before we move forward with the "Fracking solution".
    28 Dec 2012, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • Roy Blanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (53) | Send Message
    Trains are fungible; pipelines are not. Pipeline investments are forever; tank car leases have time limits and locos have other uses. Tracks put down in one place can be picked up and moved when the need is over.
    28 Dec 2012, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • Sumflow
    , contributor
    Comments (3595) | Send Message
    >Tracks .. can be picked up and moved.<


    What about Railroad right of ways, can they be picked up and moved around?
    29 Dec 2012, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • lorneb
    , contributor
    Comments (346) | Send Message
    >"Fracking is "Big Oil" newest version"<
    Actually Fracking has been in use since the mid 50's
    Yes it is a good idea to do appropriate research to ensure we do what is right before doing what may or not be good. We should also not assume it is bad just cause "Big Oil" wants to and has been doing it for 60 plus years.
    >"Trains are fungible; pipelines are not.<"
    Actualy pipelines are fungible, albiet not nearly to the extent as trains but they do handle different products. Pipelines also handle some volatile products, which in IMO, much more safely than trains can. Certain types of gases and fuels for example. Pipelines skirt a lot of high density populated areas whereas trains do not to nearly the same extent. Trains do derail and leak or spill their loads more often than may be noted by the front pages of our news medias. Cant assume RR's are safer than pipes! Research, research. Gotta look for the Facts.
    Look at the WHOLE picture!
    29 Dec 2012, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Sumflow
    , contributor
    Comments (3595) | Send Message
    Rail shipments are three times more expensive than pipeline deliveries. In one case that I found they say, “Rail deliveries, however, cost, on average, $15 per barrel compared with the $5 per barrel for deliveries through pipeline systems.


    3 times:
    29 Dec 2012, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4684) | Send Message
    I don't have the sources handy right now but my understanding is that a lot of the landlocked crude that sells at WTI or a discount to WTI gets shipped via rail to markets priced closer to Brent. The WTI-Brent spread is ~$20, and the shipping cost is between $8 and $13, which provides plenty of margin of profit for rail. Phillips66 (PSX) is one of the companies benefiting.


    Rail is also experiencing some pressure by significant decreases in coal movement so the capacity is there. Your linked article is likely using some dated data to get to the $15 number.
    30 Dec 2012, 07:24 AM Reply Like
  • littleboymaker
    , contributor
    Comments (68) | Send Message
    Oil shipped from the Bakken to refineries in NW Washington saves ~$7 per barrell of oil, which is $700,000 per 100 car train. Trains being increased to 118 cars. Bakken crude is also, generally, much better quality oil with higher value end product. One train would supply the smallest refinery here [excluding the small in Tacoma] for less than one day.


    I expect crude by rail to California will be happening.......PSX. Buffet's BNSF is a big player in this.
    31 Dec 2012, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • Henry Miles
    , contributor
    Comments (992) | Send Message
    All you Obama haters need to settle down. His Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, accepts the science that, compared to coal, natural gas significantly reduces greenhouse emissions. He also firmly believes that fracking can be done while minimizing methane leakage. And, he and our President believe that natural gas is key to our energy independence. So, in the words of Mark Twain, "Get the facts first, you can distort them later." They support natural gas development.
    30 Dec 2012, 05:27 AM Reply Like
  • littleboymaker
    , contributor
    Comments (68) | Send Message
    Being anti fracking equals supporting coal.
    Being anti pipeline expansion promotes rail. Rail is not as safe statistically as are pipelines.


    In 1944 one million barrels of oil was moved from Texas to the East Coast non-stop daily to support the war in Europe.


    Obama refrenced "exporting energy" in interview Sunday. Pipelines will be approved and fracking will continue....IMHO.
    31 Dec 2012, 05:06 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs